The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
Captain Compassion
There is a Biocentric Solution.
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
Commentary by Paul Watson
Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Does humanity have a future?
We are presently living in what conservation biologists refer to as
the Holocene extinction event. This is the sixth global mass
extinction event in last 439 million years.
The previous five extinction events wiped out between 50 to 95 percent
of species each time. The most recent event was 65 million years ago
at the end of the Jurassic period, a cataclysmic occurrence that
exterminated the dinosaurs, the dominant group of species at of that
period.
Evolution addresses the diminishment of biological diversity through
speciation, but it takes at least ten million years to build up
diversity of species to the level prior to a mass extinction event.
The world ten million years after the Jurassic crash was radically
different than the world of the dinosaurs. The world after the
Holocene extinction event, the one we are in now, will be as radically
altered and most likely one of the species that will not survive the
event will be the present dominant species – the human species.
In a way, the Holocenic extinction event could also be called the
“Holocenic hominid collective suicide event.”
After all, we Homo sapiens are the last survivors of the hominid line,
a group that has been on its way out for some time. The beetle family,
for example, has some 700,000 species by comparison. Odds are many of
the beetle species will survive the event, whereas we will not.
But the reality is that what is happening now is the result of the
collective actions of us hominids. We are the ruthlessly territorial
primates whose numbers have soared far beyond the level of global
carrying capacity for the deadly behavioural characteristics that we
display.
This did not happen yesterday because we suddenly became aware of the
dangers of global warming. It began 50,000 years ago when a relatively
hairless primate stumbled out of equatorial Africa and began wiping
out the megafauna of the time. Wherever this creature (our ancestor)
went, their arrival was followed by large die-outs of megafauna.
Primitive hominids were well-organized, efficient, slaughter crews. As
they advanced, the mammoth, sabre-toothed cats, cave bears, giant
sloths, camels, horses, and wholly rhinos fell to their stone weapons
and deliberately set fires. The extinction of all of these great
mega-species is directly attributable to “primitive” human hunters.
The hunting down of the mega-fauna was followed by the advent of
agriculture and the domestication of selected animals. Domesticated
cows, goats, sheep, and pigs grew in numbers and denuded large areas
of grasslands. Irrigation systems began to toxify land. Then
agriculture was followed by industrial activities, and finally, by the
burning off of vast amounts of fossil fuels.
As an example, consider Australia. There were incredible creatures
that once lived and foraged in the wilds of Australia more than 50,000
years ago. They vanished.
They were victims of widespread fires set by the first human
inhabitants, the ancestors of modern day Aboriginals. The fires were
set to burn the brush, either to assist in hunting or to clear the
land. Whatever the reason, the fires were devastating and the result
was a massive extinction of species, primarily the majority of the
incredible mega-fauna of the continent.
Some fifty millennia ago, the entire ecosystem of Australia was
disrupted and transformed by humans. The fires wiped out food sources
for browsing animals like the 200-pound flightless bird called the
Genyornis. Marsupials the size of grizzly bears were obliterated. Also
destroyed were tortoises twice the size of those in the Galapagos
today, and snakes and lizards in excess of twenty-five feet.
In all, some 85 percent of the mega-fauna was removed because of human
intervention.
According to research by scientists at the University of Colorado, the
Australian National University, and the University of Washington, the
analysis of organic material in some 700 fossil eggshells laid over
centuries by the enormous bird Genyornis newtoni revealed that the
birds lived among an abundant array of vegetation that suddenly became
very scarce. This scarcity coincides with the period of colonization
of Australia by humans from Indonesia.
“It was systematic burning that caused the catastrophic collapse of
the largest animals.'' This according to Gifford Miller in an
interview from the Australian National University in Canberra.
“The widespread fires altered the environment so drastically that
what had been forest turned into a dry landscape of small scrubby
shrubs and grasses, where smaller animals that could thrive on much
more varied diets were able to survive while the megafauna vanished,''
he said.
“It can happen anywhere at any time: Humans are a part of any
ecosystem, so when you introduce people into the system, they're bound
to alter it – often so rapidly that other parts of the ecosystem don't
have any time to adjust. The result is extinction,'' Miller said.
It has been a case of steady diminishment for thousands of years
followed by a rapidly accelerating ecological downward spiral.
Today, escalating human populations have vastly exceeded global
carrying capacity and now produce massive quantities of solid, liquid,
and gaseous waste. Biological diversity is being threatened by
over-exploitation, toxic pollution, agricultural mono-culture,
invasive species, competition, habitat destruction, urban sprawl,
oceanic acidification, ozone depletion, global warming, and climate
change. It’s a runaway train of ecological calamities.
It’s a train that carries all the earth’s species as unwilling
passengers with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to
use the brake pedal.
The latest reports from the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature’s Red List (IUCN) – a database measuring the global status
of Earth's 1.5 million scientifically named species – states quite
confidently that we will lose half of them by 2150.
This is a cataclysmic prediction, yet it is strangely absent from the
world’s media. No one wants to hear about it. It’s depressing. We
would rather collectively deny ecological realities.
I’ve heard from some denialists that species extinction is natural.
Yes it is, but the normal extinction rate over millions of years has
been about one species per year and the niche vacated is readily
filled by another species that begins to specialize in filling that
niche.
But, we are now losing species faster than they can be replaced and
entire ecological niches are being vacated permanently.
Of the 40,168 species that the 10,000 scientists in the IUCN assessed,
one in four mammals, one in eight birds, one in three amphibians, one
in three conifers, and other gymnosperms are at risk of extinction.
The peril faced by other classes of organisms is less thoroughly
analyzed, but fully 40 percent of the examined species of planet earth
are in danger, including perhaps 51 percent of reptiles, 52 percent of
insects, and 73 percent of flowering plants.
Extinction of marine wildlife is considered to be even more severe
with only 4% of the Northern cod remaining and sharks being removed
from the sea at a rate of one hundred million a year.
By the most conservative measure – based on the last century's
recorded extinctions – the current rate of extinction is 100 times the
background rate. Harvard conservation biologist Edward O. Wilson
estimates that the true rate is more like 1,000 to 10,000 times the
background rate. We are losing about 200 species a day and remember
that the norm is one species per year.
Wilson predicts that our present course will lead to the extinction of
half of all plant and animal species by 2100.
The trends are all around us and in the process of rapid escalation.
Of course, it is easy to dismiss this and go about our business which
is the ignorance-is-bliss-school of thought.
But, would we do this if we were diagnosed with a terminal disease?
No, as depressing as that revelation would be, we would address
possible remedies. We would look for a cure. We would try to survive.
The planet’s ecosystem is a collective living organism and operates
very much like the human body. Water is the blood of the earth. It
provides the same function in the body as it does for the earth. Water
transports nutrients to the land and transports waste to the sea or
more specifically the estuaries and salt marshes that function as the
liver for the earth, cleansing the water of the toxins. Water
circulates through the ecosystem from the sea into the clouds falling
back onto the land and returning to the sea again. It is pumped by the
energy of the sun, the heart of the earth. It’s a continuous cyclic
movement of nutrient bearing, waste removing action that keeps the
land fertile.
A river is an artery and a vein, and streams and brooks are
capillaries. Put a dam on a river and you cut off an artery preventing
nutrients from moving downstream and you cut off the vein preventing
the waste from the land from being removed and cleansed.
Plankton, plants, and especially forests are the lungs of the earth,
removing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen. Overfishing, plankton
harvesting, and deforestation is literally diminishing global lung
capacity.
Species work interdependently to develop mutually beneficial
strategies that maintain and strengthen ecosystems. Every species
removed diminishes the system and weakens the collective body of the
biosphere.
Humans are presently acting upon this body in the same manner as an
invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological
immune system.
A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our
planet’s life support system. We are killing our host the planet
Earth.
I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being
the “AIDS of the Earth.” I make no apologies for that statement. Our
viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and
ourselves. We are both the pathogen and the vector. But we also have
the capability of being the anti-virus if only we can recognize the
symptoms and address the disease with effective measures of control.
John Muir once wrote that when you tug on any part of nature, you find
that it is intimately connected to every other part of nature.
The symptoms are right here before our eyes. Bee diminishment is
causing diminishment in plants dependent upon bee pollination. Army
ants support 100 known and identified species from beetles to birds.
Grey whales are returning to Mexican lagoons under-nourished. Shark
and large predatory fish populations have been reduced to between 65
to 95 percent in our oceans. Entire fish species are in a state of
rapid collapse, especially the commercially valued species like cod,
wild salmon, swordfish, and tuna.
Seventy species of South American frogs have been declared extinct in
the last two decades. Thousands of species of insects are going
extinct in the rainforests that have not even been discovered and
classified.
I remember walking along the beaches in Vancouver harbour a few
decades ago. Every single stone overturned sent a flurry of disturbed
baby crabs scurrying to find new cover. I was fascinated by the sheer
number of tiny crustaceans that I observed on those walks. Today, I
have not found a single young crab under a single rock on those
beaches. They were picked clean by Vietnamese immigrants that
descended like locusts onto those beaches and stripped them clean. And
criticism of that exploitation immediately elicited accusations of
racism.
Today racism, cultural rights, and the right to exploit nature for
commercial gain are the weapons used to defend gross over-exploitation
of species and the destruction of natural habitats.
An extinction event is a quickly accelerating process. The number of
species removed will rise relevant to the rising number of host
species.
There is only one cure, only one way of stopping this rising epidemic
of extinctions. The solution requires an extraordinarily immense
effort by all of human society but it is achievable.
We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the
garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.
This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of
humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the
context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is
impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human
realities.
But the alternative is unimaginable. Unless we address the problem, we
will be faced with the complete transformation of the planet from one
of diversity to ecosystems shattered, weakened, and destroyed by mass
extinction and the collapse of bio-diversity.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Henry David Thoreau wrote that “in
wildness is the preservation of the world.”
We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny
preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be
maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness
ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and
separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication
systems can link the communities.
In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems
instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of
the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are
free to evolve without human interference.
We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to
fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism
and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that
all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow
citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity
of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us
believe.
We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and
solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or
small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.
Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest
ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation
should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is
necessary.
All consumption should be local. No food products need to be
transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing
should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should
be caught individually by hand.
Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to
eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with
wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to
fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey
predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need
the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of
the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We
need to live with them in mutual respect.
We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar
wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower
populations of domestic housecats and dogs. Already the world’s
housecats consume more fish than all the world’s seals and we have
made the cow into the largest aquatic predator on the planet because
more than one half of all fish taken from the sea is converted into
meal for animal feed.
We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on
marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and
so can the rest of us.
We can retain technology but within the context of Henry David
Thoreau’s simple message to “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
We need an economic system that provides all people with educational,
medical, security, and support systems without mass production and
vast utilization of resources. This will only work within the context
of a much smaller global population.
Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely
dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small
percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some
people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire
and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated
if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.
This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system
where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the
population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An
economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot
survive the ecological law of finite resources.
There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new
design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our
past ecological folly.
Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and
therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a
radical and invasive approach
It won’t be easy but then it’s better than the alternative.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net
PagCal
Captain Compassion wrote:
> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
> There is a Biocentric Solution.
> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>
> Commentary by Paul Watson
> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>
> Does humanity have a future?
Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the strongest ever
seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
Lars Eighner
talented PagCal broadcast on alt.politics:
> Captain Compassion wrote:
>> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
>> There is a Biocentric Solution.
>> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>>
>> Commentary by Paul Watson
>> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>>
>> Does humanity have a future?
> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
> Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
Nonesense. It's just more proof that God hate Kansas.
--
Rev. Fred Felch
www.godhateskansas.com
Captain Compassion
Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
PagCal
Captain Compassion wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Captain Compassion wrote:
>>> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
>>> There is a Biocentric Solution.
>>> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>>>
>>> Commentary by Paul Watson
>>> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>>>
>>> Does humanity have a future?
>> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
>> Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
>>
>> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the strongest ever
>> seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
>
> Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
>
Global Warming predicts these type of weather events. It adds credence
to the theory, rather than detract from it.
But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
Consider the CAT5 that hit NO, or the six year drought that is hitting
the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
Warming increases.
Somehow, it's better than saying that God punished Greensborough because
they watched to much Desperate Housewives or whatever.
>
Bob
news:KLG%h.50$Ej2...@newsfe03.lga...
>
> Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
>>>> There is a Biocentric Solution.
>>>> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>>>>
>>>> Commentary by Paul Watson
>>>> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>>>>
>>>> Does humanity have a future?
>>> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
>>> Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
>>>
>>> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the strongest ever
>>> seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
>>
>> Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
>
> Global Warming predicts these type of weather events. It adds credence
> to the theory, rather than detract from it.
>
> But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
> Consider the CAT5 that hit NO, or the six year drought that is hitting
> the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
> severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
> Warming increases.
What CAT5 hitting NO are you referring to?
Kurt Lochner
>
>The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
Nope, but you can sure see it from here..
--If you're not living in denial of the scientific consensus..
What Me Worry?
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:463F388B...@hotmail.com...
You must be referring to Peak Oil, no?
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
bob
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:5qct33d2n7or1n4p4...@4ax.com...
> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
> There is a Biocentric Solution.
> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>
> Commentary by Paul Watson
> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>
> Does humanity have a future?
Not unless we get off this planet. Mathematical the Earth will go into the
Sun. I wonder if the Arabs will be still killing each other by then?
Grendel
> Captain Compassion wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
>
> >> Captain Compassion wrote:
> >>> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
> >>> There is a Biocentric Solution.
> >>>http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>
> >>> Commentary by Paul Watson
> >>> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>
> >>> Does humanity have a future?
> >> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
> >> Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
>
> >> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the strongest ever
> >> seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
>
> > Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
>
> Global Warming predicts these type of weather events.
Global Warming 'predicts' tornados? Isn't that like a palm reader
'predicting' to a lonely woman that 'she will meet a man soon' (which,
roughly half the people she meets will be men).
Actually, it's more like Global Warming 'predicts' that the sun will
come up.
> It adds credence
> to the theory, rather than detract from it.
It in no way adds credence to a theory to 'predict' an event that
would happen anyway. It DOES, on the other hand, detract from the
credibility of the idiots who claim such an event adds credence to
their pet theory.
> But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
> Consider the CAT5 that hit NO,
Which CAT5 would that be. I've lived in the area over 40 years, and I
don't remember a CAT5 hitting New Orleans. Camille was a CAT5 that
hit Mississippi. If you are referring to Katrina, it was a measly
CAT3 when it hit EAST of New Orleans.
> or the six year drought that is hitting
> the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
> severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
> Warming increases.
Okay, please provide cites of such sever event over the 'baseline'.
(and constantly yelling that 'EVERYBODY KNOWS' is not a credible
cite).
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Yes, you have the right to be offended. So fucking what?"-Solomon
Short.
Captain Compassion
>
>
>Captain Compassion wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Captain Compassion wrote:
>>>> The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
>>>> There is a Biocentric Solution.
>>>> http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html
>>>>
>>>> Commentary by Paul Watson
>>>> Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
>>>>
>>>> Does humanity have a future?
>>> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the effects of
>>> Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
>>>
>>> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the strongest ever
>>> seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
>>
>> Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
>>
>
>Global Warming predicts these type of weather events. It adds credence
>to the theory, rather than detract from it.
>
The assumption being that these kind of weather events have never
happened before.
>But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
>Consider the CAT5 that hit NO, or the six year drought that is hitting
>the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
>severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
>Warming increases.
>
What you have here is an example of what is called in science an
observational artifact. What with satellites, world wide weather
monitoring and instant communication we can certainly know the number
and severity of weather events from say 1940 to the present. Weather
events of the 1800s or the 1000s or of 123,000 BC are for the most
part unknown. There is no real way to know if what we are seeing is
significant as compared to other periods of the earths history.
>Somehow, it's better than saying that God punished Greensborough because
>they watched to much Desperate Housewives or whatever.
>
Shit happens.
PagCal
The evidence just keeps piling up:
Drought a drain on flora, fauna
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Times Staff Writer
May 8, 2007
One for the record books
Graphic
Around this time each year, thousands make the pilgrimage to the
Antelope Valley to see California poppies shining in the fields around
Anne Aldrich's Lancaster home.
"There are fields of orange, just like in 'The Wizard of Oz' when you
first spot the Emerald City," Aldrich said.
But not in 2007, as Southern California is poised to experience its
driest year on record.
"We don't have poppies this year. This is about the worst we've seen,"
she said. "It's desert-brown."
The relentlessly dry weather has made this a spring like no other across
the region, wreaking havoc on the ecosystem.
Downtown Los Angeles has recorded less than 4 inches of rain since July
1 — less than a quarter of normal. The region was hit Monday with
another round of high heat, low humidity and dry winds, prompting
officials to issue a red flag warning for brush fires. (It will continue
through tonight.)
The effects of the prolonged dryness can be seen and felt all around.
Seasonal ponds are cracked dry, leaving no haven for some frog eggs or
fairy shrimp to hatch. Some flower-dependent butterflies are staying
dormant for another season.
Plants aren't bearing berries; some oak trees aren't sprouting acorns.
Bees are behaving strangely.
The problem is apparent in Ventura County, where ranchers are selling
their cattle early or thinking about moving them to other states.
Ranchers' lands, starved of rainwater, have not grown the natural
grasses key to feeding cattle through the spring and summer.
John Harvey, a Ventura County ranch owner for 30 years, said he will
have to sell half his herd of 350 mother cows by summer.
"This is the worst year I can ever remember," said Harvey, president of
the Ventura County Cattlemen's Assn.
A nature hike through the parched hills of Griffith Park offers few of
the usual spring blooms.
"Look at how miserable they are, these seeds," said longtime ranger
Giuseppe Pira, pointing to the shriveled berries of a California toyon
shrub, which normally should be plump and green in the spring.
Many of the plants in the park show signs of stress. Leaves droop and
seed pods are wilted. Even if a shrub's leaves are green, they are
brittle to the touch.
Because there has been so little rain, Pira said, dust is sticking to
the leaves, giving them a sickly look and making plants more susceptible
to disease.
"This is entirely different in my years of experience, no flowers, no
nothing," Pira said. "Even the bees — they don't have much to eat."
Fewer flowers means a poor honey season for California beekeepers, who
rely on wildflower nectar to feed their bees.
"It looks like we're going to have one of the worst years for honey
production in Southern California," said Red Bennett, owner of Bennett's
Honey Farm in Fillmore. "Wildflowers represent about 90% of our honey
production."
During the near-record rainy season two years ago, Bennett's farm
produced 2.3 million pounds of honey. He said he expects to produce
"40,000 to 50,000 pounds this year, if that."
"I think that's optimistic," said Bennett, who is buying expensive sugar
syrup to keep his bee population alive this year.
"We're kind of like in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl right now," Bennett said.
"There's nothing we can do about the weather. We don't cry about it. Our
bankers cry a little bit when they don't get paid."
In urban areas, bees are becoming more of a nuisance as they try to find
additional sources of water. Los Angeles County agricultural officials
have detected a spike in complaints about beehives in buildings. There
was even a report of a swarm forming inside a sidewalk water main in
Highland Park.
"Once natural sources of water in the hills or mountains are dried up,
there's so many backyard swimming pools and people watering their lawns,
forming puddles — it's attractive," said Ken Pellman, spokesman for the
agricultural commissioner.
The dry weather has resulted in more fires that have been harder to
extinguish this winter and spring. A study of moisture levels of plants
like sagebrush across Los Angeles County found that they have half the
water content this month that they had in May 2006.
Unless there is significant deluge in the next few weeks, which is
unlikely, L.A. will set a dryness record this year.
Lush, irrigated lawns and gardens are also attractive for wildlife. That
has prompted the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to warn that animals
such as deer and rabbits might be tempted to look for succulent
vegetation in neighborhoods — and their predators might not be far behind.
"It's going to be a pretty desperate year," said Paul Edelman, chief of
natural resources and planning at the conservancy.
A resident of La Cañada Flintridge reported to the Theodore Payne
Foundation, a native plant center, what she considered to be an
extremely rare sight: deer roaming around her subdivision, eating ivy.
Elsewhere in the hillside community, Kitty Petti said she saw a bobcat
staring at her as she was unloading items from her car April 10 — the
first time she has seen one since she moved into her home 11 years ago.
"The part I found disconcerting was it didn't head for the hills. It
went behind my neighbor's house," said the mother of two.
The heat also has Southern Pacific rattlesnakes slithering down from the
hills — and into backyards and even homes.
Snake wrangler Bo Sylapich said he is getting three times the normal
business for May. He recently was called to actress Sally Field's Malibu
home, where her gardener was bitten by a snake.
The heat, Sylapich said, has awakened snakes from their winter slumber,
and as their prey — mostly rodents — search for water, the snakes tag
along, taking them closer to water sources.
"Temperatures control their movements," he said. "They're just like we
are. When we go into air conditioning, they're looking for air
conditioning too. When we come out, they come out."
Vegetation is parched in forests, and in some spots there will be less
surface water for coyotes, bears and mountain lions to drink from, said
Stanton Florea, fire information officer for Angeles National Forest.
"There's not enough green forage," said Steve Loe, a forest biologist
for San Bernardino National Forest.
Though Southern California saw near-record rainfall in 2005, officials
are quick to point out it was an aberration. For much of the last
decade, the region has experience drought-like conditions, with less
rainfall than normal.
The lack of rain has long been a concern as the wild turkey population
has dwindled in the San Bernardino forest. Loe worries the turkeys will
be particularly hard-hit this year.
Sylapich is concerned, but he's also philosophical.
"Mother Nature's having fun with us."
Grim Reaper
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean transient weather events -- such as freak cold snaps lasting
a week or so???
Thanks for clearing up that point. The next time we have a sudden
cold wave and the rightwingers trumpet it as proof that global warming
is not happening, I'll refer them to your comment.
Kurt Lochner
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:32:05 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
> >>>
_____>
> >>>>Does humanity have a future?
> >>>
> >>> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the
> >>> effects of Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
> >>>
> >>> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the
> >>> strongest ever seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
> >>
> >>Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
> >
> > Global Warming predicts these type of weather events. It adds
> > credence to the theory, rather than detract from it.
>
>The assumption being that these kind of weather events have never
>happened before.
Nope, you're assuming that which doesn't exist, for the sake of
a straw-man pseudoargument that you can easily knock over..
> > But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
> > Consider the CAT5 that hit NO, or the six year drought that is hitting
> > the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
> > severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
> > Warming increases.
>
>What you have here is an example of what is called in science
>an observational artifact.
Nope, but let's see what you're trying to falsely misinterpret..
>What with satellites, world wide weather monitoring and instant
>communication we can certainly know the number and severity of
>weather events from say 1940 to the present.
That is so incorrect an assumption, as opposed to a set of conjectures
that might, if could try more honestly, lead to a testable hypothesis.
>Weather events of the 1800s or the 1000s or of 123,000 BC are for
>the most part unknown.
There's the spin, now here comes the pitch..
>There is no real way to know if what we are seeing is
>significant as compared to other periods of the earths history.
Having seen such a tornado, an F-5, or EF-5, and its effects back
in 1999, and a recent phenomena more nearly resembling an inland
hurricane, I suggest that you're deliberately twisting the way
weather records are kept and recorded to 'suggest', or rather
cast an aspersion, regarding anomalous weather events.
That is 'scientifically' dishonest of you, in my experience..
Example follows..
> > Somehow, it's better than saying that God punished Greensborough
> > because they watched to much Desperate Housewives or whatever.
>
>Shit happens.
Why do you suggest that which you cannot adequately account for?
--And if you were "god-fearing", would you be so dishonest?
Captain Compassion
>
1. Southern California is a desert.
2. Wild Turkeys are not a native species to the area.
3. "Driest year on record" has meaning only if you assume that weather
only started in 1850.
4. I thought all the bees were gone.
Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
-- Captain Compassion
>>> Somehow, it's better than saying that God punished Greensborough because
>>> they watched to much Desperate Housewives or whatever.
>>>
>> Shit happens.
>>
>>
--
Captain Compassion
<pilgrimina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Feel free.
Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
-- Captain Compassion
Captain Compassion
Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
-- Captain Compassion
Steve
And on top of all that, the sky is falling again...
Matt
wrote:
>
> >Fewer flowers means a poor honey season for California beekeepers, who
> >rely on wildflower nectar to feed their bees.
>
> >"It looks like we're going to have one of the worst years for honey
> >production in Southern California," said Red Bennett, owner of Bennett's
> >Honey Farm in Fillmore. "Wildflowers represent about 90% of our honey
> >production."
>
> >During the near-record rainy season two years ago, Bennett's farm
> >produced 2.3 million pounds of honey. He said he expects to produce
> >"40,000 to 50,000 pounds this year, if that."
>
> >"I think that's optimistic," said Bennett, who is buying expensive sugar
> >syrup to keep his bee population alive this year.
>
> >"We're kind of like in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl right now," Bennett said.
> >"There's nothing we can do about the weather. We don't cry about it. Our
> >bankers cry a little bit when they don't get paid."
>
> >In urban areas, bees are becoming more of a nuisance as they try to find
> >additional sources of water. Los Angeles County agricultural officials
> >have detected a spike in complaints about beehives in buildings. There
> >was even a report of a swarm forming inside a sidewalk water main in
> >Highland Park.
>
> >"Once natural sources of water in the hills or mountains are dried up,
> >there's so many backyard swimming pools and people watering their lawns,
> >agricultural commissioner.
>
> >The dry weather has resulted in more fires that have been harder to
> >extinguish this winter and spring. A study of moisture levels of plants
> >like sagebrush across Los Angeles County found that they have half the
> >water content this month that they had in May 2006.
>
> >Unless there is significant deluge in the next few weeks, which is
> >unlikely, L.A. will set a dryness record this year.
>
> >Lush, irrigated lawns and gardens are also attractive for wildlife. That
> >has prompted the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to warn that animals
> >such as deer and rabbits might be tempted to look for succulent
>
> >"It's going to be a pretty desperate year," said Paul Edelman, chief of
> >natural resources and planning at the conservancy.
>
> >A resident of La Cañada Flintridge reported to the Theodore Payne
> >Foundation, a native plant center, what she considered to be an
> >extremely rare sight: deer roaming around her subdivision, eating ivy.
>
> >Elsewhere in the hillside community, Kitty Petti said she saw a bobcat
> >first time she has seen one since she moved into her home 11 years ago.
>
> >"The part I found disconcerting was it didn't head for the hills. It
> >went behind my neighbor's house," said the mother of two.
>
> >The heat also has Southern Pacific rattlesnakes slithering down from the
>
> >Snake wrangler Bo Sylapich said he is getting three times the normal
> >business for May. He recently was called to actress Sally Field's Malibu
> >home, where her gardener was bitten by a snake.
>
> >The heat, Sylapich said, has awakened snakes from their winter slumber,
> >along, taking them closer to water sources.
>
> >"Temperatures control their movements," he said. "They're just like we
> >are. When we go into air conditioning, they're looking for air
> >conditioning too. When we come out, they come out."
>
> >Vegetation is parched in forests, and in some spots there will be less
> >surface water for coyotes, bears and mountain lions to drink from, said
> >Stanton Florea, fire information officer for Angeles National Forest.
>
> >"There's not enough green forage," said Steve Loe, a forest biologist
> >for San Bernardino National Forest.
>
> >Though Southern California saw near-record rainfall in 2005, officials
> >are quick to point out it was an aberration. For much of the last
> >decade, the region has experience drought-like conditions, with less
> >rainfall than normal.
>
> >The lack of rain has long been a concern as the wild turkey population
> >has dwindled in the San Bernardino forest. Loe worries the turkeys will
> >be particularly hard-hit this year.
>
> >Sylapich is concerned, but he's also philosophical.
>
> >"Mother Nature's having fun with us."
>
>
> 1. Southern California is a desert.
True. Always will be. It gets better or worse on a random basis.
> 2. Wild Turkeys are not a native species to the area.
Actually, this is not true. See:
http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/turkey-in-CA.html
> 3. "Driest year on record" has meaning only if you assume that weather
> only started in 1850.
It didn't? Were you around? I wasn't... :)
> 4. I thought all the bees were gone.
Going, not gone. This is actually a fairly serious problem, if true. I
haven't
done enough research to know if the numbers are reasonable or not, but
bees are one of the major sources of pollination, something for which
all
of our agriculture is dependent.
>
> Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
> -- Captain Compassion
Science always begins with anecdotal evidence (also called
observation) and
progresses to proofs. It is belief that suffers from the stopping at
observation
point.
Matt
Captain Compassion
Hardly conclusive however I will modify my judgement to include the
possibility of prehistoric turkeys.
>> 3. "Driest year on record" has meaning only if you assume that weather
>> only started in 1850.
>
>It didn't? Were you around? I wasn't... :)
>
>> 4. I thought all the bees were gone.
>
>Going, not gone. This is actually a fairly serious problem, if true. I
>haven't
>done enough research to know if the numbers are reasonable or not, but
>bees are one of the major sources of pollination, something for which
>all
>of our agriculture is dependent.
>
>>
>> Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
>> -- Captain Compassion
>
>Science always begins with anecdotal evidence (also called
>observation) and
>progresses to proofs. It is belief that suffers from the stopping at
>observation
>point.
>
Cheers.
Matt
wrote:
I admit I was surprised too. I never think of turkeys as native to CA,
unless of course, you count people in LA...
matt
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner pointed out the hypocrisies uttered by:
> >
> >Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:32:05 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>On Mon, 07 May 2007 07:41:23 -0400, PagCal <pag...@runbox.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> whined and opined:
> > > >>>>Does humanity have a future?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Greensborough, KA, learned the hard way about one of the
> > > >>> effects of Global Warming - more and more powerful storms.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The twister was a mile and a half wide, and one of the
> > > >>> strongest ever seen in the US with winds over 200 mph.
> > > >>
> > > >>Transient weather events do not prove or disprove Global warming.
> > > >
> > > > Global Warming predicts these type of weather events. It adds
> > > > credence to the theory, rather than detract from it.
> > >
> > >The assumption being that these kind of weather events have never
> > >happened before.
> >
> > Nope, you're assuming that which doesn't exist, for the sake of
> > a straw-man pseudoargument that you can easily knock over..
> > > > But, over time, severe weather events do prove out Global Warming.
> > > > Consider the CAT5 that hit NO, or the six year drought that is hitting
> > > > the US Southwest, or the tornado in Greensborough. As the number of
> > > > severe events increases over the baseline, the confidence in Global
> > > > Warming increases.
> > >
> > >What you have here is an example of what is called in science
> > >an observational artifact.
> >
> > Nope, but let's see what you're trying to falsely misinterpret..
> >
> > >What with satellites, world wide weather monitoring and instant
> > >communication we can certainly know the number and severity of
> > >weather events from say 1940 to the present.
> >
> > That is so incorrect an assumption, as opposed to a set of conjectures
> > that might, if could try more honestly, lead to a testable hypothesis.
> >
> > >Weather events of the 1800s or the 1000s or of 123,000 BC are for
> > >the most part unknown.
> >
> > There's the spin, now here comes the pitch..
> >
> > >There is no real way to know if what we are seeing is
> > >significant as compared to other periods of the earths history.
> >
> > Having seen such a tornado, an F-5, or EF-5, and its effects back
> > in 1999, and a recent phenomena more nearly resembling an inland
> > hurricane, I suggest that you're deliberately twisting the way
> > weather records are kept and recorded to 'suggest', or rather
> > cast an aspersion, regarding anomalous weather events.
> >
> > That is 'scientifically' dishonest of you, in my experience..
*> cricket.wav <*
> > Example follows..
> >
> > > > Somehow, it's better than saying that God punished Greensborough
> > > > because they watched to much Desperate Housewives or whatever.
> > >
> > >Shit happens.
> >
> > Why do you suggest that which you cannot adequately account for?
> >
> > --And if you were "god-fearing", would you be so dishonest?
>
>Science that lives by anecdotal evidence dies by anecdotal evidence.
*>LOL!<* You know little, if nothing, about "science" and your
'faith' in a mythical 'apocalypse' is but intellectual cowardice
on your own behalf because you are unwilling to change your
wastefully ignorant ways, calling it "god's will" instead..
--That is the anecdotal evidence against you and your kind..
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> >Crappin' Impaction <dar...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?
> >
> > Nope, but you can sure see it from here..
> >
> > --If you're not living in denial of the scientific consensus..
>
> You must be referring to Peak Oil, no?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
As well as many other factors regarding our environment, the
corruption of our self-governance by corporations and fascist
neoconservatives with their false theocracies..
--To name a few..
Scotius
<pilgrimina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually, above average warmth can cause more water to
evaporate from the surface of the Earth, which reduces the incoming
amount of sunlight. That can cause minor cold snaps. People who think
that cold snaps are "proof" that global warming "isn't happening" are
telling themselves pleasant stories, but that's all they're doing.
Captain Compassion
I lived 45 of my 60 years in LA and I do understand what you mean.
Captain Compassion
The earth is a water world. H20 is by far the major Green House gas.
The worlds oceans are the major sink for Green House gasses both CO2
and H2O. Water temperature determines how much gas it can contain. The
cooler the water the more gasses that are sequestered. Climatic
history generally shows that a warmer world is a wetter world.
Kurt Lochner
>
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:05:59 -0400, Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
__>>
> >> You mean transient weather events -- such as freak cold snaps lasting
> >> a week or so???
> >>
> >> Thanks for clearing up that point. The next time we have a sudden
> >> cold wave and the rightwingers trumpet it as proof that global warming
> >> is not happening, I'll refer them to your comment.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, above average warmth can cause more water to
> > evaporate from the surface of the Earth, which reduces the incoming
> > amount of sunlight. That can cause minor cold snaps. People who think
> > that cold snaps are "proof" that global warming "isn't happening" are
> > telling themselves pleasant stories, but that's all they're doing.
>
>The earth is a water world.
Hrmm, I hadn't noticed. Perhaps you should publish a paper on that..
Just kidding..
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=14087
"As noted above, the ocean, which covers 71% of Earth’s surface,
has been one of the principal sinks for anthropogenic CO2."
>H20 is by far the major Green House gas.
Nope. Water has a much higher temperature of phase change and
can store twice as much 'latent heat' as CO2, and as such can
*NOT* be thought of as a "greenhouse gas", despite your faulty
reasonings.. I shall falsify this next..
>The worlds oceans are the major sink for Green House gasses
>both CO2 and H2O. Water temperature determines how much gas
>it can contain.
True enough, to this point.. From the next portion of my cite..
"If one were to examine its "heat content", the role of the
ocean becomes even more significant: approximately 84% of
the heat energy associated with global warming resides in
the ocean. This observation can be explained by the large
heat capacity of liquid water to store energy compared to
the atmosphere and biosphere."
>The cooler the water the more gasses that are sequestered.
Up to a point..
"Over the past 50 years, ocean heat content has been observed
to increase even to depths of 1000 meters. The ability of the
ocean to absorb both heat and CO2 is enhanced by its ability
to sequester them over a kilometer-thick layer. But future
changes are expected to lead to reduced oceanic mitigation
due to both increased water temperature (less ability to
absorb gasses like CO2) and a more limited depth range for
heat storage. A reduction in the depth of oceanic heat
storage by a factor of two will result in a doubling of
the climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and thus a doubling
of the expected future global temperature increase."
>Climatic history generally shows that a warmer world is a wetter world.
You're again over-generalizing that which you frequently have
demonstrated you have no formal or serious interest in..
--But, you're getting warmer.. Figure that out yet?
Captain Compassion
Doubt the ability of H2O to retain heat? Just spend a couple of August
nights in Jackson Mississippi.
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for
the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#_note-8
>>The worlds oceans are the major sink for Green House gasses
>>both CO2 and H2O. Water temperature determines how much gas
>>it can contain.
>
>True enough, to this point.. From the next portion of my cite..
>
>"If one were to examine its "heat content", the role of the
> ocean becomes even more significant: approximately 84% of
> the heat energy associated with global warming resides in
> the ocean. This observation can be explained by the large
> heat capacity of liquid water to store energy compared to
> the atmosphere and biosphere."
>
>>The cooler the water the more gasses that are sequestered.
>
>Up to a point..
>
>"Over the past 50 years, ocean heat content has been observed
> to increase even to depths of 1000 meters. The ability of the
> ocean to absorb both heat and CO2 is enhanced by its ability
> to sequester them over a kilometer-thick layer. But future
> changes are expected to lead to reduced oceanic mitigation
> due to both increased water temperature (less ability to
> absorb gasses like CO2) and a more limited depth range for
> heat storage. A reduction in the depth of oceanic heat
> storage by a factor of two will result in a doubling of
> the climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and thus a doubling
> of the expected future global temperature increase."
>
Yet the oceans are cooling. Why is that
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060921123321.htm
>>Climatic history generally shows that a warmer world is a wetter world.
>
>You're again over-generalizing that which you frequently have
>demonstrated you have no formal or serious interest in..
>
In the last 600 million years during which period did a warmer global
climate lead to a dryer world?
>--But, you're getting warmer.. Figure that out yet?
--
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was chiding the ambitious ignorance of:
> >
> >Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> writhed in denials:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:05:59 -0400, Scotius <wolv...@mnsi.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Grim Reaper <pilgrimina...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> You mean transient weather events -- such as freak cold snaps lasting
> > > >> a week or so???
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for clearing up that point. The next time we have a sudden
> > > >> cold wave and the rightwingers trumpet it as proof that global warming
> > > >> is not happening, I'll refer them to your comment.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Actually, above average warmth can cause more water to
> > > > evaporate from the surface of the Earth, which reduces the incoming
> > > > amount of sunlight. That can cause minor cold snaps. People who think
> > > > that cold snaps are "proof" that global warming "isn't happening" are
> > > > telling themselves pleasant stories, but that's all they're doing.
> > >
> > >The earth is a water world.
> >
> > Hrmm, I hadn't noticed. Perhaps you should publish a paper on that..
> >
> > Just kidding..
> >
> > http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=14087
> >
> > "As noted above, the ocean, which covers 71% of Earth’s surface,
> > has been one of the principal sinks for anthropogenic CO2."
> >
> > >H20 is by far the major Green House gas.
> >
> > Nope. Water has a much higher temperature of phase change and
> > can store twice as much 'latent heat' as CO2, and as such can
> > *NOT* be thought of as a "greenhouse gas", despite your faulty
> > reasonings.. I shall falsify this next..
>
>Doubt the ability of H2O to retain heat?
Nope, and I can describe its enthalpy with numbers. Can you?
>Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas [..]
Nope. You're again wrongly citing details you don't understand,
and I'll point this out and falsify your 'conclusion' again..
> > >The worlds oceans are the major sink for Green House gasses
> > >both CO2 and H2O. Water temperature determines how much gas
> > >it can contain.
> >
> > True enough, to this point.. From the next portion of my cite..
> >
> > "If one were to examine its "heat content", the role of the
> > ocean becomes even more significant: approximately 84% of
> > the heat energy associated with global warming resides in
> > the ocean. This observation can be explained by the large
> > heat capacity of liquid water to store energy compared to
> > the atmosphere and biosphere."
> >
> > >The cooler the water the more gasses that are sequestered.
> >
> > Up to a point..
> >
> > "Over the past 50 years, ocean heat content has been observed
> > to increase even to depths of 1000 meters. The ability of the
> > ocean to absorb both heat and CO2 is enhanced by its ability
> > to sequester them over a kilometer-thick layer. But future
> > changes are expected to lead to reduced oceanic mitigation
> > due to both increased water temperature (less ability to
> > absorb gasses like CO2) and a more limited depth range for
> > heat storage. A reduction in the depth of oceanic heat
> > storage by a factor of two will result in a doubling of
> > the climate sensitivity to CO2 increase and thus a doubling
> > of the expected future global temperature increase."
>
>Yet the oceans are cooling.
Incorrect. You should read your own cite, which refutes you..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060921123321.htm
"Science Daily - The average temperature of the water near the
top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003.
New research suggests global warming trends are not always
steady in their effects on ocean temperatures.
Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has
significantly cooled since 2003, the decline is a fraction
of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years."
Recall also that the polar ice packs have been melting too..
> > >Climatic history generally shows that a warmer world is a wetter world.
> >
> > You're again over-generalizing that which you frequently have
> > demonstrated you have no formal or serious interest in..
>
>In the last 600 million years during which period did a
>warmer global climate lead to a dryer world?
That sounds like a rhetorical question that I really have
no interest in looking up for you. I suggest that you stop
trying to 'falsify' the scientific conclusions that you do
not agree with because of your abject lack of understanding
and/or ineptness with logic and critical thinking..
--And lose the 'W' sticker on the back of your SUV too..
Captain Compassion
The answer is none.
The nature of hypothesis testing is to falsify the hypothesis.
Remember the default is always the null hypothesis.
And replace it with Gore? Gore lost.
Kurt Lochner
> >
> >Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> exhibited still more ignorance when:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner was chiding the ambitious ignorance of:
> > > >
> > > >Crappin' Compaction <dar...@charter.net> writhed in denials:
. . .
*> cricket.wav <*
> > > > >Climatic history generally shows that a warmer world is a wetter world.
> > > >
> > > > You're again over-generalizing that which you frequently have
> > > > demonstrated you have no formal or serious interest in..
> > >
> > >In the last 600 million years during which period did a
> > >warmer global climate lead to a dryer world?
> >
> > That sounds like a rhetorical question that I really have
> > no interest in looking up for you. I suggest that you stop
> > trying to 'falsify' the scientific conclusions that you do
> > not agree with because of your abject lack of understanding
> > and/or ineptness with logic and critical thinking..
>
>The answer is none.
Incorrect, in that you've again dishonestly dismissed details
that do not support your conclusion. That's the funny thing
about you 'science deniers'. You cherry-pick the details that
support your false conclusions, rather than testing your simple
minded conjectures as a formalized hypothesis..
Example follows..
>The nature of hypothesis testing is to falsify the hypothesis.
Yet, you seldom bother with the details that do..
>Remember the default is always the null hypothesis.
Nope, you're again completely wrong, in several regards,
and I feel no obligation to disprove your negative claim.
> > --And lose the 'W' sticker on the back of your SUV too..
>
>And replace it with Gore? Gore lost.
Only because of a court system that ruled in favor of partisan
political beliefs, which was completely dishonorable of the
Supine Court, in my estimations of decisions handed down.
--The real losers were the American people..